The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-07-23


publisher, nor owner, nor manager |
He was not even sole editor, for it was
proved that Mr.. Whitney usually took
editorial charge in his absence. Any |
body who sold the paper containing
the libel was guilty. The charter Of
the company enjoined that there should
be published the name Of someone
who should be responsible for what
ever appeared in the paper.
Mr. Whitney's name appeared con
spicuously in that regard, and in this
case was in charge of the paper. He
did not know why Mr.. Atkinson should
be singled out for criminal prosecution,
under penalty of fine and imprison-
ment, when there we're more RESPONSE
bic persons to be proceeded against.
The indictment had charged him with
maliciously publishing the libel,
but the fact was that he did not do il
and had no intent or negligence proved
against him. Defendant should not
be punished for another mans sins.
The matter was so simply one Of fair
play and justice that with the Courts
instructions he was content to leave
the matter in their hands.
His Honor asked Mr.. Dole if he
meant to say that an editor was not
responsible for what appeared in his
paper
Mr.. Neumann suggested a recess Of
five minutes while Mr. Dole was look.
ing up authorities, which the Court
was pleased to grant On resuming,
Mr.. Neumann closed for the prosecu-
ton. He dIsclaimed any vindictiye-
ness on the part Of counsel against Mr.,
Atkinson. Something should be done
when man was injured as Mr.. Pratt
was in this case. There were circum
stances surrounding that offensive arti-
Gle Of an aggrayating nature. The
Honolulu Rifles were called out that
day to preserve the public peace, and
the publication Of such an article then
might have led TO heaven knows what.
He referred to. the article coming out
on the point Of a mail departure for
abroad, when il would go forth to Mr.
Pratts acquaintances in different parts
of the world.
He contended that Mr. Atkinson
was not free from responsibility. De.
iendant could only be cleared from re-
sponsibility in case he was detained
from his editorial duties that day by
sickness or accident. 1t would have
been some mitigation Of the ofense il
an explanation Of the publication had
been given in a subsequent issue Of the
paper, but not a single line had ap'
peared in the paper by way Of explana
ton or apology. While Mr.. Atkinson
was personally guiltless, yet the law
held him liable for the ofense On
the stand he was privileged in with
holding the name OF the writer Of the
article, but surely on such a technical
point the oifense is not to 60 unpun
ished.
Judge Preston began his charge
about ten minutes TO six. After citing
the law as to what libel was, he re
marked on the unquestionably libel
lous nature Of the article in this case
When he read the charge against Mr.
Pratt, he unhesitatingly pronounced /
false. His Honor spoke Of the serious
responsibility Of conductors Of the
press, and said il was a hard thing &c
convict a man Of criminality IN a mat
ter Of which he had no knowledge. He
reluctantly felt compelled to rule thai
il the jury believed that Mr. Atkinson
did not have any knowlege Of the often
sive article before its appearance, the,
should find a verdict for the defendant
This ruling was made reluctantly be
cause he felt that an editor should b
,, held responsible for what appeared il
his paper, and the injured person il
the case should have some vindicatioI
of his character.
The jury retired at eight minute
past six. In two minutes they re
turned with a verdict Of mot guilty"